[Cody Dawg]

In my opinion, one of John Kerry's biggest liabilities is his wife.

She comes across as abrasive and pushy and even foul-mouthed.

I'd like people to tell us, especially Democrats, if they like Teresa Heinz Kerry because to date, I have not met one person that likes this woman -- not even Democrats seem to like her and she's the wife of their presidential candidate!

Dick Morris said this:

Before Tuesday night, John Kerry had only two people to defend on his ticket.

Now, with her speech, he has three.

Then there is her infamous tirade against Democrats which you can read about here where she says beautiful things like:

The combustible and ever-quotable Heinz Kerry said of Democrats, ``The Democratic machine in this country is putrid.'' Excerpts of the comments appeared in The Boston Herald American in January 1976.

Then there are these comments that she's made:

On Monday, Heinz Kerry told a reporter to "shove it" after being questioned about another speech she had made.

In the past, she has raised eyebrows for talking about Botox injections, having Kerry sign a pre-nuptial agreement and "maiming" her husband if he ever had an affair.

I think his wife is one of Kerry's biggest obstacles to ever becoming president: She is too abrasive, un-American (she is not an American), and volatile.

Maybe that's why Kerry loves Edwards as much as he does.

[lil'babykitten]

Don't you think it's time to start addressing the real issues?

[Cody Dawg]

I think about 50 other threads here are already doing that, don't you?



I think that it's time for some levity.

[voyageur]

How is it levity calling someone "abrasive, pushy and unamerican"?
How is it okay for Dick Cheney to tell a member of Congress to F*ck off, but not okay for Heinz Kerry to tell a photographer to "shove off?
Could it be you have a double-standard for the behavior of women and men?

[Cody Dawg]

My, aren't we sensitive today, huh?



Glad to see who the real Heinz Kerry fans here are!



I still think that Heinz Kerry is going to help her husband lose the election.

Time for some coffee.

Have a great day!

[lil'babykitten]

I'm just waiting to see some Americans have a decent discussion about the candidate's policies rather than their personal lives/irrelevant crap.

Oh and I'm not a huge fan of Kerry. And I don't like heinz ketchup.

Have fun today, iWrite....er...I mean, Cody Dawg.

[UNTeMac]

Hi, my name is Cody Dawg and I ignore what others post and just keep parroting the same point, hoping no one will notice.

[Zimphire]

If Kerry would actually say what he stands for and sticks to it maybe we could LBK.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I'm just waiting to see some Americans have a decent discussion about the candidate's policies rather than their personal lives/irrelevant crap.

Oh and I'm not a huge fan of Kerry. And I don't like heinz ketchup.

Have fun today, iWrite....er...I mean, Cody Dawg.

Policies? We don't even know what Kerrys polocies are! Once he says where he officially stands, then we can discuss them.

[Randman]

Yes, she is scary. She's like Hillary but without the common sense to keep her mouth shut in public.

[Randman]

Kerry's policy is not to have a policy.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Randman:
Kerry's policy is not to have a policy.

Which is why he will lose.

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, that is too true, djohnson.

Also,

Yes, she is scary. She's like Hillary but without the common sense to keep her mouth shut in public.

Could not be more true.



I think every savvy political pundit has mentioned that.

I've never been a big Hillary Clinton fan but I admire her ability to play the game in such a way that she accomplishes her goals.

This is not a country where women have as much sway and opportunity in politics as men do (IMO), so being able to achieve goals in the political theater is impressive, like Hillary Clinton has done. There is a double-standard when it comes to women in both politics and the workplace, unfortunately, even in this day and age. It's getting better, but it is not as equitable as it could be.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If Kerry would actually say what he stands for and sticks to it maybe we could LBK.

Oh gimme a kitkat! American elections always focus on the irrelevant personal crap about politician's lives. Now you're just making excuses.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Oh gimme a kitkat! American elections always focus on the irrelevant personal crap about politician's lives. Now you're just making excuses.

No, really I am not making excuses. Kerry doesn't stand for anything right now. He is doing it on purpose.

So one is made to look at what he HAS stood for.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:


Don't you think it's time to start addressing the real issues?

We're trying to, if both sides can stop throwing sh!t at each other.

And, Kerry having a wife that's a potential psycho is an issue, IMO.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Oh gimme a kitkat! American elections always focus on the irrelevant personal crap about politician's lives. Now you're just making excuses.

LBK, it's a very real problem. Kerry won't tell anyone what he's standing for, or discuss his platform and policies. One day he's holding up a gun, the next he's trying to ban the gun he was holding. I mean, WTF??

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And, Kerry having a wife that's a potential psycho is an issue, IMO.

better than the husband being the psycho, imho.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
better than the husband being the psycho, imho.

Eh, he seems to be a psychopathic liar.

[Cody Dawg]

MacNStein: You're absolutely right about the wife issue.

It's important that she once called the Democrats "putrid."

Now she is in support of them?

She and Kerry are perfect for each other...

They're probably over at the local IHOP enjoying a waffle or two together.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Eh, he seems to be a psychopathic liar.

yes, that too.

[KaBlooey]

Teresa isn't your usual off the rack politician's wife, and that seems to offend some people. I'll take her over the bland cut-outs that usually say all the "right" things, wear what appears to be a man's leisure suit from the 70's (Laura) and generally just blend in.

I find her colorful and interesting. I do think she hurts her husband's chances to a degree, and that says more about voters than it says about her.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
MacNStein: You're absolutely right about the wife issue.

It's important that she once called the Democrats "putrid."

Now she is in support of them?

She and Kerry are perfect for each other...

They're probably over at the local IHOP enjoying a waffle or two together.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Oh gimme a kitkat! American elections always focus on the irrelevant personal crap about politician's lives.

[Cody Dawg]

Uh, and notice that no one has come out and said that they actually like Teresa? Laura Bush I like. She seems very nice and kind. You'd never hear her tell someone to "shove it."

Asked what she (Laura Bush) thought of Teresa making that comment, she actually defended her and said, "It's tough to be the wife of a politician."

I was impressed with that.



I see that

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
MacNStein: You're absolutely right about the wife issue.
It's important that she once called the Democrats "putrid."
Now she is in support of them?

Important? Something she said in 1976? People change.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
yes, that too.

rofl

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Important? Something she said in 1976? People change.

Aah.. only if the Dems would give Bush the same insight..

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
LBK, it's a very real problem. Kerry won't tell anyone what he's standing for, or discuss his platform and policies. One day he's holding up a gun, the next he's trying to ban the gun he was holding. I mean, WTF??

lol American elections - such humorous entertainment.

But seriously, http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html All his policies are there under 'Plan for America'. Stop being a sucker for the sensationalist media.

[Cody Dawg]

Zimph

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
But seriously, http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html All his policies are there under 'Plan for America'. Stop being a sucker for the sensationalist media.

Which change all the time LBK.. that is what we are trying to tell you. How do you know what he is for when he constantly changes his mind?

First he was for the war on Iraq. Then he was against it because there was no WMDs found.

Now he is saying he would have been for it had he known before hand that the WMD wasn't there.

How can you tell what his stance is when even HE HIMSELF has no clue?

[Cody Dawg]

Love that sig, Zimph.

Anyway, the latest gaffe was his allowing himself to be photographed waving around the very same gun that he wanted outlawed/banned.

Whoever allowed that was stupid.

And it was a brilliant photo-op for the Bush campaign.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Aah.. only if the Dems would give Bush the same insight..

I think most Kerry supporters are more concerned about who Bush is now, considering all the damage he's doing. Besides, with all Bush's verbal gaffes, there's more than plenty to work with rather than deal with something he may have said 30 years ago.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How can you tell what his stance is when even HE HIMSELF has no clue?

lol...this is no different than any other election. It's politicking. Every candidate tells whatever state he is in at the time something different, just to get them on board. You gotta wade through all the bullsh1t. It's some heavy duty stuff I know, wear big boots. You should be used to it by now anyway, I mean Bush has been in office for 4 years!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
I think most Kerry supporters are more concerned about who Bush is now, considering all the damage he's doing. Besides, with all Bush's verbal gaffes, there's more than plenty to work with rather than deal with something he may have said 30 years ago.

"All the damage he has done"

Maybe to the Democrat party.

[Cody Dawg]

You've got a good point, Kitten, but give us some good concrete examples of Bush vacillating with such extremes as Kerry has.

Seriously, I'd like to know.

I try to keep an open mind and be more objective and I'm willing to read and to listen to what people have to say -- which is why I'm here in the Political forum.

So, let's hear some examples, okay?

Thanks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
lol...this is no different than any other election. It's politicking. Every candidate tells whatever state he is in at the time something different, just to get them on board. You gotta wade through all the bullsh1t.

Actually Bush pretty much tells it how it is. He is pretty darn predictable as to what he is going to do. Americans like to be able to know the actions of their president.

It's some heavy duty stuff I know, wear big boots. You should be used to it by now anyway, I mean Bush has been in office for 4 years!

Yes he has. And the boot wading I have done have come about because of the Dem's responses. Not anything that Bush has done himself.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
lol American elections - such humorous entertainment.

But seriously, http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html All his policies are there under 'Plan for America'. Stop being a sucker for the sensationalist media.

Look at it this way, LBK: his policies are right there, for all of America to see and debate, and yet the Republicans still manage to get the "flip-flop" label to stick. This thread is living proof of that. The facts, as I see them, simply do not correspond to how this campaign is being played out in the media.

To me, it shows me that Kerry and the Democrats are simply impotent. I've read parts of that document -- I plan on reading the whole thing before the election -- and there are some good ideas there. But all he could do during his nominating speech is salute and play up the fact that he was in Vietnam for four months? There is more than enough to differentiate Kerry from Bush in their approach to taxes, education, and the economy, just to name a few issues, and yet the Democrats are unable to get the debate away from a war that was waged 35 years ago.

Whether or not you agree with the Republican platform, you have to understand that the Republicans have figured out to motivate and capture the imagination of Americans much more than the Democrats have. And if Dubya sticks around for four more years, it will be because the Democrats are too incompetent to campaign effectively.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Look at it this way, LBK: his policies are right there, for all of America to see and debate, and yet the Republicans still manage to get the "flip-flop" label to stick. This thread is living proof of that. The facts, as I see them, simply do not correspond to how this campaign is being played out in the media.

Yes it's a vast right wing conspiracy!

Kerry has never flipped flopped! We are just making it up!

That whole Being for Iraq then against it, then for it thing never happened!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
You've got a good point, Kitten, but give us some good concrete examples of Bush vacillating with such extremes as Kerry has.

I can't believe you're actually asking me this question! I mean....

um...hello? Iraq? ring any bells? That has to be one of the biggest twisted stories ever to emerge. Saddam bad! WMD, look! he has em all! He gonna kill all of us! Collin Powell at the UN with all that fancy graphical BS? BS is what it was! OK...so Bush's primary justification for WAR, yes WAR, where thousands of innocents lost their lives and continue to, daily, falls flat. Next BS justification? Oh 9/11? remember that catastrophe, of course you do, well all of a sudden that was Saddams fault. Yes, that's it. Saddam was complicit in organising the 9/11 terrorist attack. Riiiight. Do you have any evidence Mr Bush? Well uh...Al Queda has a Q in it, so does Iraq. There you go! So his second argument falls flat. What's next? oh the humanitarian reason, cos Americans are such loverly humanitarians, we must give them Iraqis some freedom. Right, so out of all the countries that could do with a little freedom, Bush happened to pick the country with one of the world largest oil resources. Coincidence? Ya huh.

Need I go on?

[Cody Dawg]

Important? Something she said in 1976? People change.

So, something Teresa Heinz Kerry said in 1976 shouldn't be relevant?

That's what the Democrats all say.

Then why is it that all Kerry does is talk about his time in Vietnam and how his time in the war way back when matters?

But all he could do during his nominating speech is salute and play up the fact that he was in Vietnam for four months? There is more than enough to differentiate Kerry from Bush in their approach to taxes, education, and the economy, just to name a few issues, and yet the Democrats are unable to get the debate away from a war that was waged 35 years ago.

TOO TRUE.



On one hand the Dems say that what they've said 35 years ago doesn't matter...

Then they turn around and say that it does.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

Need I go on?

Yes please LBK. Go on with your very negative tilted left wing nutzo version of what happened.

We've never heard it before.


Ever.

[lil'babykitten]

It's exactly what happened. And it'd be something to laugh about if so many innocents hadn't lost their lives over it.

[Cody Dawg]

Why is it that people/Dems only want to focus on the WMD issue of Iraq?

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE LIVING UNDER A TYRANT WHO KILLED AND TORTURED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?

That's okay?

I could give a rat's *ss about WMD, to be honest. I supported going into Iraq because I think the preeminent reason was to give people in the region a chance at religious, political, and educational freedom.

WMD is at the bottom of the list to go in there. It was one of the symptoms of a corrupt and evil regime, ONE of the reasons to go in there, not THE reason.

Give me a better example than WMD.

[Cody Dawg]

And it'd be something to laugh about if so many innocents hadn't lost their lives over it.

<sigh>

Yes, it's nice to know that you care so much about those poor people that died in/on 9/11.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I can't believe you're actually asking me this question! I mean....

um...hello? Iraq? ring any bells? That has to be one of the biggest twisted stories ever to emerge. Saddam bad! WMD, look! he has em all! He gonna kill all of us! Collin Powell at the UN with all that fancy graphical BS? BS is what it was! OK...so Bush's primary justification for WAR, yes WAR, where thousands of innocents lost their lives and continue to, daily, falls flat. Next BS justification? Oh 9/11? remember that catastrophe, of course you do, well all of a sudden that was Saddams fault. Yes, that's it. Saddam was complicit in organising the 9/11 terrorist attack. Riiiight. Do you have any evidence Mr Bush? Well uh...Al Queda has a Q in it, so does Iraq. There you go! So his second argument falls flat. What's next? oh the humanitarian reason, cos Americans are such loverly humanitarians, we must give them Iraqis some freedom. Right, so out of all the countries that could do with a little freedom, Bush happened to pick the country with one of the world largest oil resources. Coincidence? Ya huh.

Need I go on?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Why is it that people/Dems only want to focus on the WMD issue of Iraq?

Because your government is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents and the basis for the invasion was a complete falsification!

I'd say that was quite an issue! Amazing how willing you are to forget such things. Tossing around people's lives is not something I would be so complacent about.

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE LIVING UNDER A TYRANT WHO KILLED AND TORTURED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD LIVING IN SUCH CONDITIONS? WHY HAVEN'T YOU INVADED THOSE PLACES YET, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT?!

And from where and why exactly did Iraq just suddenly pop up on the Bush agenda?

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That's okay?

I could give a rat's *ss about WMD, to be honest. I supported going into Iraq because I think the preeminent reason was to give people in the region a chance at religious, political, and educational freedom.

That's all fine and dandy. But your government has other plans - freedom is not among those plans.

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
WMD is at the bottom of the list to go in there. It was one of the symptoms of a corrupt and evil regime, ONE of the reasons to go in there, not THE reason.
Sorry, but WMD was right at the top of the list. It was the basis upon which Bush tried to convince the rest of the world to come on board with. And it failed. So we moved on to plan B, which also failed. And now, well there is no plan. It's a complete mess.
Give me a better example than WMD.

Foreign policy is all I care about. I'm not American so domestic affairs don't effect me at all. I know that the whole 'no child left behind' strategy fell through though.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
<sigh>

Yes, it's nice to know that you care so much about those poor people that died in/on 9/11.

Quoi?

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
[B]So, something Teresa Heinz Kerry said in 1976 shouldn't be relevant?

That's what the Democrats all say.

Then why is it that all Kerry does is talk about his time in Vietnam and how his time in the war way back when matters?

Is that all he does? Y' think that might be a tad exaggerated? I don't equate military service with some offhand insult someone uttered 30 years ago.

A related note, Kerry screwed up when he made his military service the background of his convention. Showing up in a boat with his viet nam buddies was dorky. Saluting and saying "reporting for duty" was dorky tripled. But it's a campaign ploy and campaign ploys are often lame and almost always transparently showmanship, Reps or Dems.

Though it wasn't a campaign ploy per se, Bush showing up on that carrier with the pilot suit was about the second dorkiest thing I've seen in the last few years. So we can debate campaign ploys, photo ops and such for eternity, but they're not the point, no matter how much politicians want us to think they are.

[Zimphire]

According to LBK and ilk that think like her, you cannot or should not free anyone in oppression unless you free them all at once.